Wade v. United States of America

Filing 88

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 87 Amended Motion to Reopen. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

E. K. WADE,
Plaintiff,

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING AMENDED
MOTION TO REOPEN

v.

10
11

Case No. 06-cv-02346-CRB

UNITED STATES OF AMERCIA,
Defendant.

12

In 2005 and 2006, Plaintiff E.K. Wade filed twenty-four lawsuits in the Northern

13
14

District of California, eight of which related to problems he experienced at Veterans

15

Administration hospitals. See Order Granting Mot. for SJ (dkt. 82) at 1–2. In some of the

16

lawsuits, Wade asserted claims based on a VA hospital’s refusal to fill his prescription for

17

Prednisone. Id. at 2. In this lawsuit, by contrast, he asserted claims based on an allegedly

18

negligent decision to give him Prednisone. Id. On August 24, 2007, the Court granted the

19

government’s motion for summary judgment after Wade failed to file any opposition. See

20

id.

21

Now, over thirteen years later, Wade has moved to reopen this case and vacate the

22

judgment against him. See Amend. Mot. to Reopen (dkt. 87). He argues that the Court

23

lacked subject matter jurisdiction and denied him due process, and that (alternatively) the

24

interests of justice require the Court to reopen the case. Id. at 5. Wade’s arguments appear

25

to be primarily aimed at a prefiling order entered in this case on December 14, 2006. See

26

Prefiling Order (dkt. 55). Wade also appears to contest a similar prefiling order entered by

27

Judge Alsup in a different action. See Amend. Mot. to Reopen at 7; see Wade v. Gilliland

28

et al, No. 10-cv-00425-WHA Dkt. Nos. 100, 168.

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enumerates grounds for relief

1
2

from a final judgment. These grounds include:

3
4

(1)
(2)

5

(3)

6

(4)
(5)

7
8

(6)

9
10

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have
been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party;
the judgment is void;
the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an
earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or
any other reason that justifies relief.

Even if a party can present grounds for relief under Rule 60(b), the party must do so

12

“within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). A motion relying on the first three

13

grounds must be made “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the

14

date of the proceeding.” Id.

15

Here, to the extent Wade’s motion might rest on the first three grounds, it is time-

16

barred under Rule 60(c)(1)’s one-year deadline. And to the extent Wade suggests that the

17

Court’s judgment and prefiling order are void, or that other reasons justify relief, he has

18

not moved for that relief “within a reasonable time.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Wade

19

offers no explanation for his more than thirteen-year delay in filing the motion to reopen.1

20

Wade’s apparent challenge to a separate, decade-old order also must fail, even

21

leaving aside any timing issues. See generally Amend. Mot. to Reopen at 7; Wade v.

22

Gilliland et al, No. 10-cv-00425-WHA Dkt. No. 100. That order was not issued in this

23

case or even by the undersigned judge. Neither Rule 60 nor any other authority permits a

24
25
26
27
28

1

Had Wade timely moved for this relief, the Court would nonetheless deny Wade’s motion.
Wade provides no reason to conclude that the judgment was void or that the interests of justice
require reopening this case. As Judge Alsup has already concluded with respect to similar
arguments, the prefiling order was valid. See Wade v. Gilliland et al, No. 10-cv-00425-WHA Dkt.
No. 141 (N.D. Cal. March 27, 2019), affirmed Wade v. Gilliland, 812 F. App’x 624 (9th Cir.
2020). Wade’s history as a vexatious litigant is well-documented, and Wade had ample
opportunity to challenge the order before this Court and on appeal.
2